ArticleScandinavian journal of caring sciences2026
Caring Behaviours in Nursing: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Trends and Knowledge Structure.
Article in Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaring behaviours constitute one of the most visible ways in which "caring" is translated into everyday nursing practice, yet the field has become increasingly heterogeneous across settings, outcomes, and conceptual traditions. A field-level map is therefore needed to clarify how the literature has evolved and where it is currently concentrating.
objectiveThis study aimed to bibliometrically map the literature on caring behaviours in nursing, focusing on global research trends, thematic development, collaboration networks, citation performance, and the field's intellectual structure.
methodsA bibliometric analysis was conducted on publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection between 1987 and 2025, following the SALSA framework. Analyses included performance indicators (publication growth; most productive journals and countries), Author Keyword-based frequency, trend-topic, co-occurrence, and thematic analyses following synonym merging and spelling harmonization, co-authorship network analysis (collaboration patterns), citation analyses, and co-citation mapping to examine the field's intellectual structure.
resultsA total of 351 documents from 158 sources (1987-2025) were included. The literature demonstrated steady growth, accelerating after 2016. Core source outlets included BMC Nursing, Journal of Nursing Administration, and Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. The USA, Iran, China, and Turkey were among the most productive countries, while international co-authorship remained limited (14.25%). Thematic signals suggested a shift from earlier emphases on patient satisfaction toward a more recent focus on nursing education, empathy, emotional intelligence, and, most recently, compassion fatigue. The thematic map positioned caring behaviours within the basic-themes quadrant, whereas work environment and related humanistic-care concepts showed greater thematic development. Foundational influences remained anchored in Watson and Swanson, and measurement-oriented works (notably Wu and Wolf) functioned as key intellectual bridges.
conclusionsCaring behaviours research appears to be a maturing but still expanding field with strong theoretical and measurement "anchors," yet comparatively constrained cross-national collaboration. Future work may benefit from more internationally coordinated programmes and greater attention to cross-cultural validation of measurement tools and to the emotional, organizational, and digitally mediated contexts in which caring behaviours are enacted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.